Glossary of the Iraqi
Occupationby Paul de
Rooijwww.dissidentvoice.orgApril 29, 2004(Updated August
30)

It is amazing to me that they [CentCom]
aren’t more careful with their language. They are talking about it
in a language very much of early colonialism, or just in a language
of pure military ramboism.

—Rahul Mahajan,
FlashPoints.net, April 14, 2004, commenting on
CentCom’s [US
military command] use of the word “cleansing”.

A

ny
time there is war or an occupation of another country, propagandists
or their media surrogates require language that mollifies,
exculpates and hides the grim reality or sordid deeds. In an attempt
to gain a deeper understanding of what is really happening in Iraq,
this glossary elucidates the terminology commonly used in the media.
Its aim is to enable us to peer through the linguistic fog.

There is a
fundamental problem with such a glossary. The propagandists will
coin terms to exculpate or palliate aspects of the occupier’s
activities, and aspects of the occupation whose mention cannot be
avoided. However, propagandists loathe referring to the
uncomfortable and repugnant aspects of the occupation or war. For
example, it is very clear that the US military will not publicize
lists of Iraqi civilian deaths (NB: they compile some lists, but
these aren’t made public [1]). Iraqi hospital
officials are “discouraged” from compiling lists of civilian
casualties and granting journalists access to morgues. The list of
“forbidden” compliant media topics is rather long, but a subset is
presented below.

Finally, the
justifications for the war against Iraq, and the subsequent
occupation, have changed over time, and the third list below
documents the justifications proffered by the American occupiers to
date. This growing list is the graveyard of justifications.

The Glossary

Abused terminology

Translation

Al-Qa’ida

Bogeyman Rex.

There was no link between Al-Qa’ida
and pre-2003 Iraq, and even now, the US can’t point to evidence
of an Iraqi connection.

Ambassador

Proconsul.

It is rather odd to call Paul
Bremer an ambassador; the man even wears army boots!

Anti-Iraq forces

Catchall Opposition
– (and clear example of doublespeak).

“Soon after the Occupation,
the United States and its allies—military and
ideological—referred to the Iraqi resistance as ‘foreign
elements’ ‘terrorists’ or ‘former loyalists of the Saddam
regime’. This phraseology has now become redundant and US
military spokesman are now referring to the guerrillas as
‘anti-Iraqi forces’ as if to suggest that the US, British, […]
and Polish troops represent Iraq but the Iraqis who resist the
occupation are anti-Iraqi.”
—Tariq Ali, “The Iraqi Resistance: a New Phase”, CounterPunch,
April 10, 2004.

"We've got some strikes
against anti-Iraqi force positions in the city using tanks and
aircraft... We have hit some positions"
—Lieutenant
Colonel T.V. Johnson told AFP Aug. 24, 2004.

Referring to many groups
conveys the impression that a significant segment of the
population is ganging up against the US, and this is counter to
the propaganda claim that the opposition is a “small minority”.
Furthermore, Americans, including Bush, are notorious for not
knowing who is who in a country. So, forget the details, and go
for a catchall group!

Avenge

Kill 100X of theirs for each one
of ours.

“Iraqi history is already
being written. In revenge for the brutal killing of four
American mercenaries — for that is what they were — US Marines
carried out a massacre of hundreds of women and children and
guerillas in the Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah. The US
military says that the vast majority of the dead were
militants. Untrue, say the doctors. But the hundreds of dead,
many of whom were indeed civilians, were a shameful reflection
on the rabble of American soldiery who conducted these
undisciplined attacks on Fallujah.”
—Robert Fisk, “By endorsing Ariel Sharon’s plan George Bush
has legitimised terrorism”, The Independent, April 16, 2004.

NB: the principle of avenging
the occupier’s losses by collective punishment is a war crime.
In Lidice during World War II, Germans killed at least 172
civilians to “avenge” some of their own, and this was considered
a war crime. In Fallujah, the killing of four mercenaries has
resulted in “hundreds” of Iraqi civilians killed. Ariel Sharon
would approve.

Baathist loyalists

Another convenient bogey group.

If the US rejects “Islamic”
groups, “Baathists”, … who is left? NB: “Baathists” could be
either the nationalists who the
CIA
helped assassinate in the 1960s or the ones who joined the thugs
who killed the former group. The persecuted Baathists (those who
opposed Saddam) may have a legitimate grudge against the US, the
others were the US’s SOBs.

“Evidently, the
CIA
helped bring Saddam Hussein’s thuggish party to power and
fatally weakened the prospects for Iraqi democracy. Some
reliable sources believe that more than ten thousand were
killed and more than a hundred thousand arrested in the coup
and the bloody weeks that followed, described by historians
Peter and Marion Sluglett […] as ‘some of the most terrible
violence hitherto experienced in the postwar Middle East’.”
—Hanna Batatu, “CIA
Lists Provide Basis for Iraqi Bloodbath”, 1978.

Barrel of the gun

Whose guns?

“Last
week, in the middle of the growing chaos in Iraqi cities,
Bremer savagely denounced groups ‘who think power in Iraq
should come out of the barrel of a gun’. He was not apparently referring to the US and
British armed forces who seized power in Iraq (and put him
into his powerful post) entirely and exclusively by sustained
use of the barrels of thousands of guns…”
—Paul Foot, “The beam in Bremer’s eye”, The Guardian,
April 14, 2004.

Body
Count

Number of
"enemy" bagged.

So anyway it's not possible to
come up with an even moderately hard number, but you can do
better than nothing. In the media reports that follow, the
primary source of numbers is the Ministry of Health, but also,
bizarrely, the U.S. military has on occasion revived the old
“body count”
reporting from the Vietnam era. It has several times put out
numbers of “Mahdi Army members"
killed in the operation. Just like old numbers of
“Vietcong killed,”
of course, it's likely that many of the people included are
noncombatants.

It's also worth noting that the
numbers they give out are done solely for the purpose of
bragging; a military that claims to do humanitarian
interventions according to the laws of war should focus
particularly on reporting civilian deaths, since one cannot
possibly evaluate the proportionality of methods or whether
humanitarian bombing saves more than it kills if one isn't even
keeping track of how many innocents are killed.—Rahul
Mahajan,
Empire Notes, August 25, 2004

Casualties

American casualties of course.
Casualties used to refer to both dead and wounded. The
Pentagon’s reporting of “casualties” only pertains to the
fatalities; the wounded don’t count in its grisly accounting.

Ceasefire

War by other means.

“With the ‘ceasefire,’
large-scale bombing was rare. With a halt in major bombing,
the Americans weren’t attacking with heavy artillery but
primarily with snipers.”
—Rahul Mahajan, “Report from Fallujah – Destroying a Town in
Order to Save it”, April 12, 2004.

Civilian contractors

Mercenaries.

There are more mercenaries in
Iraq today than there are British soldiers – an estimated 40,000
“security contractors”. The ads in back section of Soldier of
Fortune, the trade magazine for literate mercenaries,
indicate boom times for the profession.

Cleanse

Massacre.

“It is critical that we
cleanse the Iraqi body politic of the poison that remains here
after 35 years of Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian rule.”
—Dan Senor (assistant to the US proconsul), April 12, 2004.
Commenting on the US Marine attack against Fallujah and Najaf.

NB: Fallujah and Najaf were
known for their opposition to Hussein, hardly a “poison”.

Coalition

“token hangers-on” (John
Pilger, Apr. 1, 2004)

“Coalition” only when it suits
the Americans. When it comes to reporting casualties, only those
of the US military are reported. When it comes to apportioning
juicy contracts, US companies get the lion’s share. What do the
“coalition” members think about this? The British are
complaining that they aren’t even consulted – they dearly would
like to play second fiddle.

Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)

American Occupation Authority.

“Coalition”? Only when it suits
them. Provisional? It is starting to look rather permanent.

Democracy

One warlord, one vote.

Hand-picked satraps willing to
sign off on the occupation of Iraq, the plundering of its
resources, and the construction of several military bases.

It is rather odd that while the
US calls on the Middle East to “democratize”, it was actively
involved in overthrowing the democratically elected gov’t of
Haiti. Here the US armed, trained and funded an armed gang led
by death squad leaders to mount the coup. So much for respect
for democracy; in the American version even death squad leaders
may apply.

Devastating intellect

Ebullient accolades

“Bremer was described in a
special Financial Times profile last week as ‘an
imposing figure with a devastating intellect’.”
—Paul Foot, “The beam in Bremer’s eye”, Guardian, April 14,
2004.

It will be rather amusing to
see what the FT will
say when Bremer is replaced. The countdown for the sacking of
Bremer has begun, and John Negroponte has already been slated as
his likely replacement. Negroponte’s experience in running the
contras against Nicaragua, and his years as proconsul in
Honduras give him impeccable credentials. He is another
“intellect that devastates”.

Elections

Sometime in the future when Iraq
is ready for democracy.

The Americans want “stability”
first, and then, after a sufficiently long trial period, there
may be “elections”. Of course, the US remains the sole arbiter
of whether or not Iraq is “stable.”

End
of major combat operations

May 1, 2003, the start of the
occupation of Iraq.

Evidence-free

Just making it
up!

"Evidence-free" is
the adjective used by David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq
Survey Group (which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and links to terrorism), to describe VP Dick
Cheney's assertion that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties
with Al Qaeda; cited in "Bush Backs Cheney on Assertion linking
Hussein, Al Qaeda," Michael Kranish and Bryan Bender (Boston
Globe)

Extremist

Anyone opposing the American
occupation.

Eye-raq

Iraq.

Even after several years
obsessed with Iraq the president and most of his entourage
mispronounce the name of the country.

Flashpoints

Cities where Iraqis have risen
against occupation.

“Flashpoints” is the
BBC’s
favorite term when referring to the conflict in Iraq. When
referring to the Israeli occupied territories it uses
“hotspots”. Contrast this with the
BBC’s
language used a month ago when referring to the armed gang
mounting a coup against a democratically elected government in
Haiti. Here “towns rose against Aristide’s oppressive rule.”
Never mind that death squad leaders and people accused of mass
crimes led the rebels in taking over cities, brutalizing the
population.

Foreigners

Look who is talking!

“ ‘Meanwhile, a U.S. Marine
commander said not all the fighters in the Iraqi city of
Fallujah are Iraqis.’ Lt. Gen James Conway, the Marine
commander in Fallujah, said there are some foreign fighters in
Fallujah — and he indicates they may have been there for a
while.”
—BBC
Online, April 7, 2004.

Someone should point out to the
gentleman that he is a foreigner too. And is it a justification
to attack a city?

“ ‘Foreign fighters’ were now
in the battle, according to the US Secretary of State Donald
Rumsfeld. The US media went along with this nonsense, even
though not a single al-Qa’ida operative has been arrested in
Iraq and of the 8,500 ‘security detainees’ in American hands,
only 150 appear to be from outside Iraq. Just 2 per cent.”
—Robert Fisk, “A war that was founded on lies and illusions
has one simple truth: Iraqis do not want us”, The Independent,
Apr. 9, 2004.

Gathering threats

Creating threats.

“Mr Bush also said that the
lesson of those attacks had been that America had to deal with
‘gathering threats’ before they came to fruition, a policy
that catalysed the US-led invasion of Iraq.”
—BBC
Online, April 14, 2004.

American policy is not so much
about responding to “gathering threats”, but rather one of
“sowing and reaping the threats.”

Handover of power

Cosmetic rebranding of the
occupation

Hearts and Minds

Mr. Niceguy only if there is
stability.

“Winning hearts and minds
from behind the safe walls of Saddam’s palaces, or in an
armoured vehicle, is impossible. Yet given the level of risk,
we may be now moving to a turning point in the conduct of
operations. If the insurgency provokes the coalition forces,
then the steady progress to a peaceful democracy in Iraq will
be halted. Without a clear, agreed political process, army
commanders will argue for priority to go to the safety of
their own troops.”
—Tim Garden, “Coalition forces fight a losing battle to win
the peace”, The Guardian, April 6, 2004.

“To win hearts and minds,
America needs to turn on the lights, provide clean water, give
people jobs and impose law and order. But hardly any of this
has happened because Bush administration-connected firms such
as Halliburton and Bechtel have stolen the vast majority of
the money allocated for such tasks.”
—Christian Parenti, “Autopsy of a Failed Occupation”,
AlterNet.org, April 14, 2004.

Improving

Things are actually getting worse.

One of the justifications for
the continued occupation is to help Iraq emerge as a prosperous
country. Unfortunately, things are only getting worse. Almost a
year of occupation and most of the country doesn’t have
electricity, the health system has almost collapsed and so on.

Of course, if one questions
what is happening on the ground, then one becomes a “naysayer”.

Iraqi
Governing Council (IGC)

Satraps in waiting.

On April 10th, one
IGC member complained that they had not been
consulted on the American onslaught against Fallujah and Najaf.
So much for “governing” or “council”.

Kill
or Capture

Dead or alive.

Wild west terminology utilized
by CentCom
spokesmen when stating their intentions in finding the cleric
Moqtada Sadr. NB: Sadr’s father is highly revered in Iraq, and
the family is renowned for its opposition to Hussein. Of course,
this ramboism is acceptable due to the inherent anti-Islamic
prejudice of the occupiers – to them, the cleric is a mere “raghead”.

Mahdi army

Rag tag militia.

“The cleric’s young and
largely uneducated followers have been dubbed the Mahdi army.
They are not an army — more of a loose-knit group of
frustrated Shia Iraqis with Kalashnikovs. As one volunteer,
Syad Mustafa, said: ‘We don’t have any bases. We don’t have
any tanks. We don’t have any jets.’ ”
— Luke Harding, “Huge US attack to crush Iraq rebels”, The
Guardian, Apr. 28, 2004.

Nation building (aka Peace building)

Building neo-colonial institutions.

“What the imperialists term
‘nation-building’ or ‘peace-building’ refers to the need to
construct and uphold a political and social regime in the
‘post-war’, or more accurately, post-military intervention
scenario. It entails a qualitatively more intensive modality
of engagement characterized by acute micro-management of the
proxy government. According to the Rand Corporation’s best
practices study, ‘nation-building’ is not primarily about
rebuilding a country’s economy, but about transforming its
political institutions.”
—Alejandro Bendaña (Former Nicaraguan representative to the
UN), “Nicaragua’s And Latin America’s ‘Lessons’ For Iraq”,
FocusWeb.org, April 8, 2004.

“[The Office of the Secretary
of Defense] recently took unqualified possession of the
emerging American way of war, and began supplanting the
traditional grammar of war with a new one. However, this new
grammar-which focuses on achieving rapid military
victories-was equipped only to win battles, not wars. Hence,
the successful accomplishment of the administration’s goal of
building a democratic government in Iraq, for example, is
still in question, with an insurgency growing rapidly.”
—Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria, “Toward an American Way of
War”, Strategic Studies Institute, March 2004.

Even the military find that
although having won the battle they may well lose the war.
Obviously, some are questioning Rumsfeld’s “grammar”.

Not
Flinch

The British version of “resolve”.

“I will not flinch from
historic Iraq fight”
—Tony Blair, The Observer, April 11, 2004.

Nothing like suggesting that
others have to continue fighting. This was appropriately uttered
when Blair was in Bermuda.

Pacification

Counterinsurgency warfare.

“By its heavy hand, and
growing Iraqi recognition of its intention to dominate, the
United States has stoked an insurgency that has been growing
by leaps and bounds. The only Bush administration answer to
this development is the application of more force. When
applied to a revolt deeply rooted in the civilian population
this means counterinsurgency war, with lavish use of deadly
weapons, and therefore escalating civilian casualties. So,
added on to an initial war of aggression we are now descending
into a war of pacification. This will involve a further
destruction of Iraq in order to save it — for Western ends and
to save the Bush election campaign.”
—Edward Herman, “We Had To Destroy [Fill in Country Name] In
Order To Save It”, Swans.com, April 12, 2004

When a
CentCom
spokesman was recently (April) asked where one could view a
reconstruction project that directly benefited the Iraqi
population, he couldn’t name one! Most of the reconstruction
projects are centered on the oil industry.

“One U.S. journalist found
that many reconstruction projects that had allegedly been
‘rebuilt’ had in reality barely been touched. One ‘repaired’
school was overflowing with raw sewage. When I visited Ramadi
and Fallujah in January, people on both towns were angry about
chronic water and electricity shortages. Power plants,
telephone exchanges and sewage systems all remain looted and
bombed out. According to the NGO CorpWatch, only 10 percent of
Halliburton’s initial $2.2 billion in contracts has been spent
on meeting community needs.”
—Christian Parenti, “Autopsy of a Failed Occupation”,
AlterNet.org, April 14, 2004.

Resolve

Pigheaded stubbornness.

A distinct unwillingness to
recognize that errors have been made, and that to withdraw
conveys a sign of “weakness”. To withdraw while conveying a
“sign of strength”, then the US would have to follow Sharon’s
example in withdrawing from Gaza. In the case of Gaza, this
involved transforming it into a giant prison camp, assassinating
leaders, stopping the delivery of emergency food…

Shia
circle

New CNN
military analyst terminology.

Just like the “Sunni triangle”
[q.v.], these terms convey the impression these areas are tiny
and thus no cause for concern. The people living there are “a
small minority.” There is never a need to mention how many
people live there.

Silent majority

Pretense that most Iraqis support
the occupation.

While the White House is doing
its best to allay comparisons with Vietnam, it chooses to
resurrect one of Nixon’s favorite terms to justify the
continuation of the Vietnam War. Nixon claimed that the silent
majority favored the war. Just as it was a bogus argument then,
it is a bogus argument now.

Slight uptick

Military terminology for an
insurrection.

“Things are getting worse,
much worse in Iraq. Yesterday’s horrors proved that. Yet just
a day earlier, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, […], assured us
that there was only an ‘uptick’ in violence in Iraq. Not a
sudden wave of violence, mark you, not a down-to-earth
increase, not even a ‘spike’ in violence – another of the
general’s favourite expressions. No, just a teeny-weeny,
ever-so small, innocent little ‘uptick’. In fact, he said it
was a ‘slight uptick’.”
— Robert Fisk, “Things are getting much worse. It’s not just a
‘spike’ or an ‘uptick’ in violence”, The Independent, April 1,
2004.

Small minority; aka extremists

Majority opposed to occupation

“Among the more laughable
assertions of the Bush administration is that the mujaheddin
are a small group of isolated ‘extremists’ repudiated by the
majority of Fallujah’s population. Nothing could be further
from the truth.”
—Rahul Mahajan, “Report from Fallujah – Destroying a Town in
Order to Save it”, April 12, 2004.

Sovereignty

Neo-Colonization.

“Today the Free Press is
refusing to look beneath the claim of an intention to grant
‘sovereignty’ and to transfer power to Iraqis on June 30th, to
see the ways in which a US military presence and veto power
and constraints on the Iraq constitution and law would give
this country continued domination.”
—Edward Herman, “We Had To Destroy [Fill in Country Name] In
Order To Save It”, Swans.com, April 12, 2004

Stability

A quiet occupation.

When Iraqis submit and are
silent about their lot, and when the media stop reporting it,
then Iraq may be deemed “stable”.

“Stability” is also a
justification for continued occupation – if the US forces leave,
then anarchy will break out, and “even the Iraqis don’t want
that.” This overlooks the fact that most Iraqis already live
without security, electricity, clean water, proper jobs, press
freedom… To call this situation anarchic would give anarchy a
bad connotation.

Success

Causing an insurrection or a high
body count.

“The chairman of the U.S.
Joint Chiefs of Staff [Gen. Myers] said Thursday that the
deadly insurgency that flared this month is ‘a symptom of the
success that we’re having here in Iraq’ and an effort to
undermine the country’s transition to self-government.”
—Sewell Chan, “General Calls Insurgency in Iraq a Sign of U.S.
Success”, Washington Post, April 16, 2004.

Echo from Vietnam: General
Myers sharpened his teeth in Vietnam where a high body count was
considered a “success”.

Echoes from Gaza:

“… this operation was a great
success.”
—Ariel Sharon, Oct 2002, commenting on the bombing of the Khan
Yunis refugee camp where a one-ton bomb dropped by a F16
killed 14 and wounded 80 Palestinians.

Sunni triangle

CNN
terminology for another small minority.

“And, as the attacks against
US forces increased around Fallujah and other Sunni Muslim
cities, we were told this area was the ‘Sunni triangle’, even
though it is much larger than that implies and has no
triangular shape.”
—Robert Fisk, “A war that was founded on lies and illusions
has one simple truth: Iraqis do not want us”, The Independent,
Apr. 9, 2004.

The use of words like
“triangle” has much to do with the “military experts” who draw
lines on maps for the
BBC or CNN. See Shia circle.

Target-rich

Mass murder. Non-combatant civilians included.

“Marine experts say Fallujah is among the most ‘target-rich’
battlefields for snipers since the World War II battle for
Stalingrad… In nearly two weeks of conflict in Fallujah, the
unnamed corporal has emerged as the top sniper, with 24
confirmed kills.” The Los Angeles Times reports that
US snipers have been killing hundreds of insurgents:

“Sometimes a guy will go
down, and I’ll let him scream a bit to destroy the morale of
his buddies,” a Marine corporal said, “then I’ll use a second
shot.”
—Tony Perry, “For Marine snipers, war is up close and
personal”, Los Angeles Times, Apr. 19, 2004

NB: Snipers continue murdering
Iraqis even during the putative “ceasefires”.

Terrorism

The violence of the resistance.

When US generals and Rumsfeld
complain about violence against US troops, the label “terrorism”
sounds increasingly hollow. NB: violence against a fully armed
occupation force is not terrorism.

Thugs & terrorists

Demonizing the bogeymen.

“Donald Rumsfeld claims that
the resistance is just a few ‘thugs, gangs and terrorists’.
This is dangerous wishful thinking. The war against the
occupation is now being fought out in the open, by regular
people defending their homes and neighbourhoods – an Iraqi
intifada.”
—Naomi Klein, “An Iraqi intifada”, The Guardian,
April 12, 2004.

Trafficability problem

The Iraqis travel to other cities
in Iraq.

Term used by a CNN
military analyst to refer to the possibility that Iraqi
resistance fighters may join the pilgrimages to travel to other
“flashpoints”.

“With the pilgrimages we have
a trafficability problem.”
— Kelly McCann, Military Annalyst, CNN,
April 11, 2004.

Traumatic wounds to the head

Killing with
impunity.

"Not long ago,
six corpses arrived at the Baghdad mortuary after being brought
in by US forces. Three were unidentified. Three had names but
their families could not be found. All had suffered, according
to the American records, "traumatic wounds to the head", the
normal phrase for gunshot wounds. There were no autopsies. Death
is now so routine even the most tragic of deaths becomes a
footnote."

--Robert Fisk, "Baghdad is a
city that reeks with the stench of the dead", The Independent,
July 28, 2004

UN

Occupation with blue window
dressing..

Unshakable resolve

Weaponized obtuseness

Vietnam

Yes, quagmire.

“[President Bush] dismissed
as ‘false’ comparisons between the fighting in Iraq and the
bloody Vietnam War which embroiled the US three decades ago.
‘I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message
to our troops and sends a wrong message to the enemy,’ he
added.”
—BBC
Online, April 14, 2004

It is not an issue of
“message”, it is an issue of evaluating what this war was about,
and what the American occupation of Iraq is trying to
accomplish. Resistance to the creation of an
American-subservient regime implies that the analogy with
Vietnam is useful.

The comparison with Vietnam has
more to do with references to quagmire but little else. However,
there are many differences, and a striking one dealt with the
logic of continuing both wars. In the case of Vietnam, there was
an ongoing ideological and realpolitik logic to the pursuit of
victory. What is different about Iraq, and the American public
in particular, is the lack of resentment/reaction once the paper
thin justifications for war were debunked.

Volunteer army

Professional army

Some “forbidden” propaganda
topics

The list of media
neglected topics is long. There are innocent sounding items like the
temperature in Iraq that are suddenly “suspended” during the summer.
Knowing that US troops work in conditions that seriously endanger
their health and safety are similarly being suppressed. What happens
to the Iraqi population in similar conditions is rarely mentioned.
The parallel to Vietnam is worth noting; while there was some
mention of the effects of Agent Orange on American military, there
were an insignificant number of reports on the effects on the local
population. In Iraq, the same media-reporting syndrome is prevalent.

Media
Neglected topics:

Explanation

Gulf War syndrome

Recently it was found that some soldiers already have been
afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome. This syndrome killed more
soldiers after the 1991 war than during the hot war. Will
this happen again?

Responsibility
for the bombing of Kerbala

In Tariq Ali's opinion: the biggest question is who was behind
the Kerbala bombing. The intention of the bomb was to provoke
hostilities between the Shia and Sunni communities. All groups
deny responsibility, so the question is who was the sinister
force behind this. (Tariq Ali on DemocracyNow, Apr. 23, 2004).

Iraqi prisoners
or “detainees”

No lists are kept or made available to family members of
prisoners – they don’t know if the person is a prisoner or has
“disappeared”. The same thing happened during Hussein’s era.
Source: May-Ying Welsh, FlashPoints.net, April 13, 2004.

Iraqi casualties

This is certainly a revealing gem:

“As the casualties mount in
the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, Qatar-based Al Jazeera
has been one of the only news networks broadcasting from the
inside, relaying images of destruction and civilian victims –
including women and children. But when CNN
anchor Daryn Kagan interviewed the network’s editor-in-chief,
Ahmed Al-Sheik, on Monday – a rare opportunity to get
independent information about events in Fallujah – she used
the occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the civilian
deaths were really ‘the story’ in Fallujah.”
—FAIR,
April 14, 2004.

Depleted Uranium
– affecting Iraqis.

There has been some mention of
DU effects on US soldiers, but no in-depth
investigation of the effects on Iraqis.

Nature of
diseases afflicting Iraqis

Iraqi doctors are dealing with an epidemic of water borne
diseases, and have trouble coping with this.

The school
curriculum

Old textbooks are out, or at least the photo of Hussein removed.
Several odd groups are supplying books of unknown provenance or
with a dubious message.

Temperature in
summer

Last year the summertime temperatures in Baghdad were censored
in the US Free Press. Are temperatures in excess of 50C somehow
provocative?

Torture

Some Iraqis
have been killed while in US custody, and their bodies showed
signs of torture. So, has the US hired former regime torturers
or are they employing their own?

Remuneration of
soldiers and pensions

Scant attention is given to the remuneration of soldiers and
their spouses. Some of the spouses of the soldiers survive on
food stamps! The pension or compensation paid to the survivors
is pitiful.

Electricity or
water supplies

There are no statistics on the capacity availability of the
electrical or water supply systems.

Oil production

How many millions of barrels are being pumped, and what is
happening to the proceeds? Who is auditing this?

Assassination of
intellectuals

There has been a spate of assassinations or kidnappings of
well-known intellectuals – over 1,000 of them. The
warnings/threats against such people appear in the US-funded
newspaper. What is behind this?

Cost

Last year estimates for the cost of the occupation ran at
US$4bn/month. Given that there is active resistance, what is the
cost now?

The Israelization
of US military tactics

Israelis boast that the US is applying its tactics in Iraq.
Given that several of these practices amount to war crimes, then
what are the implications for the US? Is the US implementing
“targeted assassinations”, torture, house demolitions…? And why
not employ the real thing – getting Israelis to fight this war?

Increasing oil
prices.

While the war was also meant to safeguard oil reserves, why has
the price of oil risen?

The mercenary
industry

Elite soldiers around the world are abandoning their units and
joining the mercenary operators in Iraq. The British note that
it costs US$3m to train one of its elite troops (SAS),
and they are upset that they have been recruited by the merc-companies.
On average, soldiers working as mercenaries earn more than 20X
their standard army wages (tax free). So, are the national
armies going to be replaced by the corporate mercenary armies?

The Graveyard of
Justifications

The list of justifications for the
war and the subsequent occupation keeps expanding. Every time a
justification is demolished, another one is produced. Here is a
brief list of justifications that have been demolished, and a few
that are rarely discussed.

Justification

What
happened to it…

WMD

Safely disposed of.

Terror

Bogus from the beginning. If anything, US actions are causing
terrorism.

Freedom

“Two nights ago, this most
dangerous man, George Bush, talked about ‘freedom in Iraq’.
Not ‘democracy’ in Iraq. No, ’democracy’ was no longer
mentioned. ‘Democracy’ was simply left out of the equation.
Now it was just ‘freedom’ — freedom from Saddam rather than
freedom to have elections. And what is this ’freedom’ supposed
to involve? One group of American-appointed Iraqis will cede
power to another group of American-appointed Iraqis. That will
be the ‘historic handover’ of Iraqi ‘sovereignty’. Yes, I can
well see why George Bush wants to witness a ‘handover’ of
sovereignty. ‘Our boys’ must be out of the firing line — let
the Iraqis be the sandbags.”
—Robert Fisk, “By endorsing Ariel Sharon’s plan George Bush
has legitimised terrorism”, The Independent, April 16, 2004.

Democracy

See “freedom”.

Stability

US actions are provoking the opposite

Liberation

Only liberating the oil production. The occupation clearly
indicates that Iraqis will be under an American yoke for some
time.

Support our troops

We don’t hear this one anymore. This was a pretext to get those
opposed to the war to shut up during the war.

Religious tolerance

“We are locked in an historic
struggle in Iraq. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is
more than the ‘power of America’ that would be defeated. The
hope of freedom and religious tolerance would be snuffed out.”
—Tony Blair, The Observer, April 11, 2004.

This statement was uttered the
same week the Americans sought to “kill or capture” the cleric
M. Sadr.

The Iraqis wanted the Americans to
intervene

There are an increasing number of polls trying to prove that
Iraqis were in favor of the war or are doing “better” now (even
without electricity). The value of these polls is dubious, and
even so, it is clear that Iraqis want the Americans to leave.

Oil

Although this motivation reigns supreme, it is curious why the
Free Press barely manages to question the Bush regime about
this. And why would the US have to conquer Iraq to be able to
buy oil?

Military bases and “power
projection”

There are seven military bases planned at present.

Supporting Israel

Finally, Philip Zelikow, a Bush advisor, revealed that the
US-Iraq war was launched to “protect Israel”. The Free Press did
not follow up on this, nor have questions arisen why Israelis
aren’t fighting this war. “Israel: America’s aircraft carrier in
the Middle East” is starting to ring rather hollow (especially
at US$6bn+/year).

Corporate interests

With few exceptions, the role of the large American corporations
in promoting the war has not been investigated.

More Glossaries!

Tracking the
doublespeak is an amusing way to understand the state of the
American empire. Having written a few of these, and having compiled
hundreds of propaganda terms, the following patterns about this
language emerge.

1) The terminology changes constantly.
When propagandists discover a contradiction in the terminology
yielding negative connotations, the terms will be immediately
renewed. An interesting example is the naming of the grotesque wall
surrounding portions of the West Bank. Initially, it was named
“separation fence” – with an emphasis on fence, indicating something
fragile and moveable. The “separation” part was unfortunate because
it implies “apartheid”, and for propagandists this was anathema. The
replacement term was “security fence”. And now the Israeli
propagandists are pushing “terrorist prevention security fence”… The
last one is over the top, too long and transparent – it will be
replaced.

2) Another curious aspect of this
emerging terminology is the willing participation of “journalists”
in propagating the propagandist’s favored terms. For example, the
BBC’s James
Reynolds’ states: “It used to be called the security fence but
officials felt that the name did not work abroad. So now the barrier
has a new official name ‘the terrorism prevention fence’.”
[2] No worries, from now on this “journalist” will
parrot the latest terminology concocted by his Israeli handlers.

3) It is evident from the “talking
points” generated by various media consultants that new terminology
is tried out on focus groups, and much attention is paid to its
“framing”. When circumstances change, or a term becomes transparent
to a public, it will be replaced soon.

4) One would expect an educated public
to resist the abuse of language and the intended manipulation, and
that such propaganda would not be effective. Maybe subtlety would be
required to not arouse hostility among the target audience. However,
instead of a tendency towards subtlety, we witness the opposite!
Propaganda terminology even borrows from colonial/imperial
terminology of yesteryear. Propagandists don’t even worry about
having American policies labeled as “imperialism”. Part of the
reason for this has to do with the self-referential nature of news
media. That is, a statement read by a reporter from the White House
lawn is considered news. The terminology used has little to do with
conditions on the ground in, say, Iraq. When people are not aware
what is happening in Iraq, the terminology used can even mimic
colonial jargon – it doesn’t seem to matter.

5) It is surprising how the propaganda
jargon generated by the US in Iraq resembles the terms Israeli
propagandists have used over the years. There are many “civilian”
terms used to cover over a military occupation. For example,
Israelis used “civil administration” to refer to the military
occupation; the Americans use similar civilian terminology in Iraq.
Both Israel and the US attempt to portray their occupations as
benign and even enlightened (nation building, reform, etc.). On the
military front, the US is recycling Israeli doublespeak at the same
time that it is adopting the dubious and often bankrupt Israeli
tactics. One awaits the use of “targeted assassinations”,
“administrative detentions”, and so on in Iraq. The tactics are
shared, and the terminology will certainly follow.